194 F. Supp. 3d 839
E.D. Wis.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Myers alleges Aurora sent medical bills and Americollect sent a collection letter addressed to her minor child K.M. regarding alleged medical debt from February–May 2014.
- Americollect's August 16, 2014 letter to K.M. stated explicitly: “This is a communication from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt.”
- Plaintiff claims the communications upset her and her child (emotional distress) and that K.M. is not liable for the alleged debt.
- Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA (against Americollect) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) (against both Americollect and Aurora); defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Defendants argued factual defenses (e.g., account was in the minor’s name, minor may be liable under Wisconsin law, plaintiff is not the real party in interest); plaintiff argued such defenses are inappropriate at the pleadings stage.
- Court heard argument, applied the plausibility standard, and denied both motions to dismiss, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the WCA claim against Aurora.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Americollect’s letter alleged a plausible FDCPA violation | Americollect falsely represented K.M.’s legal liability and thereby violated FDCPA §§1692e and 1692f | Letter merely followed creditor’s account name; factual defenses and bona fide error defense undermine claim | Denied dismissal: pleadings suffice; FDCPA claim plausible and fact‑intensive inquiry needed |
| Whether Americollect violated the WCA | Americollect’s collection letter to a minor violated WCA prohibitions on false, misleading, harassing collection practices | Same defenses as to FDCPA; collection to person named on creditor’s account was proper | Denied dismissal: WCA claim plausible and parallels FDCPA analysis |
| Whether Aurora violated the WCA by sending bills to minor and parent | Aurora sent bill(s) to K.M. (and later to plaintiff) attempting to collect where no right to payment existed; conduct could threaten or harass | Aurora contends minors can, in some circumstances, be liable (doctrine of necessaries), account names may explain billing, and plaintiff is not the proper party | Denied dismissal: complaint minimally plausible; merits are fact‑dependent and not resolved at 12(b)(6) |
| Whether court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Aurora’s WCA claim | Plaintiff’s WCA claim is related to FDCPA claim against Americollect and should proceed in federal court | Aurora urged the WCA issue is novel/complex and exceptional reasons exist to decline supplemental jurisdiction | Denied: court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction; issue not novel enough and likely to arise regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Lodholtz v. York Risk Servs. Group, Inc., 778 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2015) (facial plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and factual allegations requirement)
- Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 505 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2007) (FDCPA protects unsophisticated consumers)
- McMillan v. Collection Prof’ls Inc., 455 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2006) (§1692e/§1692f inquiry is fact‑intensive; unsophisticated consumer standard)
- Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp., 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000) (§1692e applies to unintentional false representations)
- Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004) (debt collectors may not make false claims)
- Madison Gen. Hosp. v. Haack, 124 Wis.2d 398, 369 N.W.2d 663 (Wis. 1985) (doctrine of necessaries and potential minor liability for medical expenses)